Kent's "spendthrift" trust fund was A Tax Story

[Greegor]

You asked for proof that the trust fund EXISTS.
As I showed, public records prove that it exists.

Now you CHANGED your argument to ask me to
prove that it's YOUR trust fund.

Seems a bit dishonest of you, Kent!

Are you now acknowledging that the trust fund EXISTS?



The public records already prove that it exists, Kent.

http://gis.co.benton.ar.us/website/basemap/viewer.htm

Scroll to bottom right OWNER NAME input and type in
Wills Family Trust and hit enter.
Or put in a name of Wills, or put a parcel ID like
02-00444-000 or 15-09938-000 in the blank
marked parcel ID and then hit enter.

15-09938-000 WILLS FAMILY TRUST-FRED A JR & JANET R
8250 WILLS CT 57390 14-19-28

Kent Bradley Wills, 1110 South F Street, Rogers, Arkansas 72756-5520
County parcel # 02-00444-000 (Owned by Kent's folks Fred and Janet.)

Kent's shack

http://cbk2.google.com/cbk?output=thumbnail&thumb=1&ll=36.322943,-94.107730&cbll=36.322971,-94.107481

[Kent Wills]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 18:52:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You asked for proof that the trust fund EXISTS.

I asked that you PROVE I have a trust fund. I've been doing so
for years.
Your LIE has failed. Since you FAIL at everything you ever
attempt, this should not come as a surprise.

>As I showed, public records prove that it exists.

Liar.
You've proved two people I don't know have a trust. To the
mentally sound, this is not proving *I* have a trust fund.
As with all things, YM will V.

>
>Now you CHANGED your argument to ask me to
>prove that it's YOUR trust fund.

I've always asked that you prove your claim that I have a trust
fund.
Please see Message-ID:
<n47ca5d61bgdjtke9...@4ax.com>
While this isn't the oldest request, that it was made on Tue,
Sept. 8, 2009 it PROVES your claim is another of your MANY
pathological lies.
Poor widdle Gweggie. If you had the psychological ability to be
honest, your LIES wouldn't get exposed. Sadly, the ONLY way in which
you can be honest, intentionally, is if you believe it will advance
one or more of your lies.

>
>Seems a bit dishonest of you, Kent!

How is my asking you to prove your claim an indication of
dishonesty on my part? Seems to me your LYING about my request serves
to PROVE you have a psychological NEED to be dishonest.
Not that this TRUTH about you hasn't been PROVED many times
already.

>
>Are you now acknowledging that the trust fund EXISTS?
>

I've already stated I accept that Fred and Jan, two people I
don't know, have a trust. To the mentally sound, this is not
acknowledging I, or my parents [1], have a trust fund.
Given your mental illnesses (plural) along with your limited
intellect, you may honestly not be able to understand.

>
>The public records already prove that it exists, Kent.

Not to the mentally sound.
The pubic record you cite does prove that two people I don't know
have a trust. Since I've stated, MANY TIMES, that I accept this, your
OBSESSION with it indicates you've lost some ground in regards to your
mental health.
Now, please prove I have a trust fund.
Again, since your claim is a lie, you'll not be able. All you
can do is follow your Asperger's pattern and prove Fred and Jan, two
people neither of us know, have a trust.

>
>http://gis.co.benton.ar.us/website/basemap/viewer.htm
>
>Scroll to bottom right OWNER NAME input and type in
>Wills Family Trust and hit enter.

Again, I accept that two people I don't know have a trust. My
request that you prove *I* have a trust fund has not been addressed by
you. In fact, you keep dwelling on that which fails to prove your
claim.
Will you prove your claim now, or continue to PROVE yourself the
LIAR you are by citing a trust owned by people neither of us know?
It's your choice, of course.

>Or put in a name of Wills, or put a parcel ID like
>02-00444-000 or 15-09938-000 in the blank
>marked parcel ID and then hit enter.
>
>15-09938-000 WILLS FAMILY TRUST-FRED A JR & JANET R
>8250 WILLS CT 57390 14-19-28
>
>Kent Bradley Wills, 1110 South F Street, Rogers, Arkansas 72756-5520
>County parcel # 02-00444-000 (Owned by Kent's folks Fred and Janet.)
>
>Kent's shack
>
>http://cbk2.google.com/cbk?output=thumbnail&thumb=1&ll=36.322943,-94.107730&cbll=36.322971,-94.107481

Your LIE about this was exposed in another thread.
You really should check all aspects of your LIES before you
present them. Sadly, you're too STUPID.
A pity the rest of Usenet isn't as mentally retarded as you
consistently PROVE yourself to be. If the rest of Usenet were so
challenged, it's possible someone other than your sock puppets would
believe you.

[1] I figured I'd ruin your chances at lying about my parents, whom
you've yet to actually find.

Which of these women is Lisa Rene Watkins:

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc127/kwills_photo/8b1234bd.jpg

"I am Bob Larson."
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson offering more proof that he is
as mentally ill as he presents.
Message-ID:
<df610804-da3b-4aa8...@cu4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>

A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson (They are so accurate, Greg compared them the comment
that water is wet):

Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT

"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, by
attacking my first wife (deceased).
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead

Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?

Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child abuser:
"Of course."

"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child
abuser

" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson

Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services

With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."

"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.

--a true story

As of Wednesday, August 31, 2011:

SMALL CLAIMS ORIGINAL NOTICE
Comments: OPA $2805.04
COPIES TO PA
VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNT

JUDGEMENT DEFAULT
Comments: JUDGMENT AGAINST GREGORY HANSON FOR $2805.04
+ INTEREST AT 7.271% FROM 8/6/98 & $45.00 COSTS.

Comments: NOTE OF GARN/NOTE TO DEFT SERV 9/24/98 BY WCSD
TO SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (ED POLKERS) FOR GREG HANSON
FEES $35.60

Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson has a Garnishment order against
him. There is nothing to even suggest any of the money legally owed
has been paid. The SoL on the order has likely expired, but Greg still
can't risk getting a job due to it.

[Greegor]

G > The public records already prove that it exists, Kent.

KBW > Not to the mentally sound.

Do you think the mentally sound ignore the
property tax listing NAMING the trust?

[Kent Wills]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 10:21:17 -0700 (PDT), Greegor

<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>You asked for proof that the trust fund EXISTS.
>>
>> I asked that you PROVE I have a trust fund. I've been doing so
>>for years.
>> Your LIE has failed. Since you FAIL at everything you ever
>>attempt, this should not come as a surprise.
>>
>>>As I showed, public records prove that it exists.
>>
>> Liar.
>> You've proved two people I don't know have a trust. To the
>>mentally sound, this is not proving *I* have a trust fund.
>> As with all things, YM will V.
>>
>>>
>>>Now you CHANGED your argument to ask me to
>>>prove that it's YOUR trust fund.
>>
>> I've always asked that you prove your claim that I have a trust
>>fund.
>> Please see Message-ID:
>><n47ca5d61bgdjtke9...@4ax.com>
>> While this isn't the oldest request, that it was made on Tue,
>>Sept. 8, 2009 it PROVES your claim is another of your MANY
>>pathological lies.
>> Poor widdle Gweggie. If you had the psychological ability to be
>>honest, your LIES wouldn't get exposed. Sadly, the ONLY way in which
>>you can be honest, intentionally, is if you believe it will advance
>>one or more of your lies.

Greg?
Are you going to address how I PROVED you a liar?

>G > The public records already prove that it exists, Kent.
>

>> The pubic record you cite does prove that two people I don't know
>>have a trust. Since I've stated, MANY TIMES, that I accept this, your
>>OBSESSION with it indicates you've lost some ground in regards to your
>>mental health.
>> Now, please prove I have a trust fund.
>> Again, since your claim is a lie, you'll not be able. All you
>>can do is follow your Asperger's pattern and prove Fred and Jan, two
>>people neither of us know, have a trust.
>

>Do you think the mentally sound ignore the
>property tax listing NAMING the trust?
>

The mentally sound will not ignore the TRUTH that you've been
LYING about my having a trust fund.
The mentally sound will see that in a FAILED effort to avoid
dealing with the TRUTH, you are reduced to proving two people neither
of us know have a trust. You are frequently reduced to arguing a
point not in contention.
Doing so still hasn't gotten you that win you DESPERATELY want.

>15-09938-000 WILLS FAMILY TRUST-FRED A JR & JANET R
>8250  WILLS CT 57390 14-19-28

Once again, that two people I don't know have a trust is
accepted. How many times must this same point be raised before you'll
be able to understand it? What is the magic number?
Or are you honestly unable to understand?

[Greegor]

Hi

[Kent Wills]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 07:50:17 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:


>>>> Now, please prove I have a trust fund.
>>>> Again, since your claim is a lie, you'll not be able. All you
>>>>can do is follow your Asperger's pattern and prove Fred and Jan, two
>>>>people neither of us know, have a trust.
>>>
>>>Do you think the mentally sound ignore the
>>>property tax listing NAMING the trust?
>>>
>>
>> The mentally sound will not ignore the TRUTH that you've been
>>LYING about my having a trust fund.
>> The mentally sound will see that in a FAILED effort to avoid
>>dealing with the TRUTH, you are reduced to proving two people neither
>>of us know have a trust. You are frequently reduced to arguing a
>>point not in contention.
>> Doing so still hasn't gotten you that win you DESPERATELY want.
>>
>>>15-09938-000 WILLS FAMILY TRUST-FRED A JR & JANET R
>>>8250  WILLS CT 57390 14-19-28
>>
>> Once again, that two people I don't know have a trust is
>>accepted. How many times must this same point be raised before you'll
>>be able to understand it? What is the magic number?
>> Or are you honestly unable to understand?
>

>Hi

Your admission that you lied about who my parents are, where I
live, and my having a trust fund is accepted.
While not required, are you willing to explain why you offered
these lies and what made you think you would get away with them?

[Greegor]

G > Hi

KBW > Your admission that you lied about who
KBW > my parents are, where I live, and my
KBW > having a trust fund is accepted.
KBW > While not required, are you willing
KBW > to explain why you offered these lies
KBW > and what made you think you would
KBW > get away with them?

That's QUITE an interpretation, Kent!

You'd think you never even posted
your own Date Of Birth to usenet!

Or connected yourself to the apartment
building and the property tax records..

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/msg/7bb21a6718c8504c

Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:46:12 [...]
KBW 2003 > I was born in Krakow, Poland on
KBW 2003 > Jan. 8, 1969. I grew up there, and
KBW 2003 > in the mid 80's I came to the US.


Why DID you delete this post, Kent?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.bob-larson/msg/d25345d1ca9b5dd9

KBW > Why would you have access to
KBW > Lar$on's donation records?
KBW > Interesting slip.
KBW > Anyway, look for Kent Wills.
KBW > My address at the time was 202
KBW > NW COLLEGE AVE ANKENY,
KBW > IA 50021. It would have been in
KBW > '93 and possibly early '94.


Kent himself posted BRAGGING claims to usenet
about selling 202 NW College Ave in Ankeny.

The official real estage records do not
mention Kent's name but DO mention
Fred A and Janet R. Wills.
(In turn Connected with Kent Bradley Wills.)

http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/protest/pickdpP.cgi?dp18100392048000=1&report=WebPublic&fixed=N&sketch=Y&map=Y&photo=Y&

On 1994-04-26 in book 7010 on page 188:
WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.
sold 202 NW College Ave to:
THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST
---
WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.
THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST
1994-04-26 135,000 D/Deed 7010/188

The Iowa local court docket records show
that 5 years later the new owners,
SWEENEYS had to sue Kent Bradley Wills
for a few hundred dollars. Apparently
Kent lived in the building after his
folks SOLD it to the SWEENEYS.

05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT

[kensmithiscool]

On May 21, 10:05 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Kent himself posted BRAGGING claims to usenet
> about selling 202 NW College Ave in Ankeny.
>
> The official real estage records do not
> mention Kent's name but DO mention
> Fred A and Janet R. Wills.
> (In turn Connected with Kent Bradley Wills.)
>

> http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/protest/pickdpP.cgi?dp1810039...

>
> On 1994-04-26 in book 7010 on page 188:
> WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.
> sold 202 NW College Ave to:
> THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST
>  ---
> WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.
> THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST
> 1994-04-26 135,000 D/Deed 7010/188
>
> The Iowa local court docket records show
> that 5 years later the new owners,
> SWEENEYS had to sue Kent Bradley Wills
> for a few hundred dollars.  Apparently
> Kent lived in the building after his
> folks SOLD it to the SWEENEYS.
>
> 05771  SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT

Well as you can imagine, Kent had been living there rent-free up until
the Sweeney's had purchased the property and wasn't used to the
concept of paying rent. And so the Sweeney's wanted the lowlife out
of there.

[Greegor]

Kent himself posted BRAGGING claims to usenet
about selling 202 NW College Ave in Ankeny.

The official real estage records do not
mention Kent's name but DO mention
Fred A and Janet R. Wills.
(In turn Connected with Kent Bradley Wills.)

http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/protest/pickdpP.cgi?dp18100392048000=1&report=WebPublic&fixed=N&sketch=Y&map=Y&photo=Y&

On 1994-04-26 in book 7010 on page 188:
WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.
sold 202 NW College Ave to:
THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST
---
WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.
THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST
1994-04-26 135,000 D/Deed 7010/188

The Iowa local court docket records show
that 5 years later the new owners,
SWEENEYS had to sue Kent Bradley Wills
for a few hundred dollars. Apparently
Kent lived in the building after his
folks SOLD it to the SWEENEYS.

05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT

kensmithiscool

> Well as you can imagine, Kent had been
> living there rent-free up until the
> Sweeney's had purchased the property
> and wasn't used to the concept of
> paying rent.  And so the Sweeney's
> wanted the lowlife out of there.

156.25 seems like an oddly low amount of rent
but it IS marked rent.

After the notice fees and court costs
Kent still owes Sweeney's $306.06 on this.

Do you suppose Kent's folks sold the
apartment building on condition that Kent
got 5 years of free or really LOW rent?

Do you suppose Kent was arguing about
the difference between the agreement
date, payment date and the recorded
date of sale, to try to get one more month?

Filings
Title: SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT WILLS
Case: 05771 SCSC310505 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Event Filed By Filed Create Date Last Updated Action Date
JUDGEMENT DEFAULT BRANDT GREGORY D 08/25/1999 09/01/1999 09/01/1999
Comments: $156.25 7.244% FROM 03/30/99
COMPUTER GENERATED NOTICE 05/11/1999 05/11/1999 05/11/1999
Comments: Notice of Proof of Claim
RETURN OF ORIGINAL NOTICE 04/21/1999 04/23/1999 04/23/1999
Comments: 4/10/99 KENT PERS
37.60
VERIFICATION OF ACCT HAS BEEN FILED 03/30/1999 03/30/1999
03/30/1999
SMALL CLAIMS ORIGINAL NOTICE SWEENEY RENTALS 03/30/1999 03/30/1999
03/30/1999
Comments: UNPAID RENT

[Kent Wills]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>G > Hi
>
>KBW > Your admission that you lied about who
>KBW > my parents are, where I live, and my
>KBW > having a trust fund is accepted.
>KBW > While not required, are you willing
>KBW > to explain why you offered these lies
>KBW > and what made you think you would
>KBW > get away with them?
>
>That's QUITE an interpretation, Kent!
>

Since I've stated your reply of "Hi" is an admission from you
that you've lied and you can no longer lie your way out of it, it
shouldn't be.
And since you've never denied the claim, you have, by YOUR
standards, given the tacit admission that it is 100% true and
accurate.

>You'd think you never even posted
>your own Date Of Birth to usenet!
>

I've posted a few dates. Which one, if any, is the real one,
Greg?

>Or connected yourself to the apartment
>building and the property tax records..
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/msg/7bb21a6718c8504c
>
>Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:46:12 [...]
>KBW 2003 > I was born in Krakow, Poland on
>KBW 2003 > Jan. 8, 1969. I grew up there, and
>KBW 2003 > in the mid 80's I came to the US.
>
>
>Why DID you delete this post, Kent?
>

I didn't. Why are you lying?
Anyone who wishes can click above and see that your deeply rooted
psychological NEED to lie is out of control again.

[Snip your proof that two people we don't know live in Arkansas and
have a trust]

When will you offer your proof that I have a trust fund? Oh
wait, you already admitted you lied about it and can no longer lie
your way out of it.
Never mind.

[Greegor]

Why DID you delete this post, Kent?

[Fred Hall]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:38:20 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote in
<bbfdfe27-ffe2-4d11...@ra8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>:

>Why DID

you go into that bathroom with a naked 7 year old girl?
--

http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com/2012/05/may-2012-nominations.html

http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com/p/award-winners-1994-2012.html

http://fnvw.databasix.com (awards descriptions and more)

[Greegor]

""Fred Hall"" > Why DID you go into that
""Fred Hall"" > bathroom with a naked 7 year old girl?

Gary Lee Burnore and Kent Bradley Wills:
Do you honestly think that being on the
other side of a shower curtain is a crime?
Obviously by the wording you didn't really
want me to answer this question.

I have no criminal record for doing anything
bad to children, both of you DO have criminal
records regarding minors.

There is a HUGE difference between a
Social Services registry and a criminal
sex offender registry, Gary Lee.

I was on a Social Services registry for
a few years. Gary you did a plea bargain
where part of the plea deal you made was
to a misdemeanor BUT to register as a
criminal sex offender for the rest of
your life. Moving to a state that would
not hold you to that plea bargain over
a misd is not a situation I would
brag about if I were you.

Neither Kent nor you, Gary, acknowledge
what your online criminal records say,
not even the obvious and public record.

Gary Lee has stooges (or socks) denying his online
confessions and criminal records FOR him, even
the scanned in confession and the online confession
that he once posted. Gary Lee hides behind a sock
identity, too cowardly to owe up to what everybody
can see online.

Did you REALLY think that anybody believed your
story about waking up with a 15 year old on top
of your penis, Gary?



Gary's confession to Police
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc3.JPG

Gary's online confession
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/shmoo.com/jun99-msg00146.html

Official North Carolina Department Of Corrections web site
http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=0594483

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&biw=1020&bih=602&q=4469+Still+Pines+Drive,+Raleigh,+NC+27613-3334

http://cbk3.google.com/cbk?output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv&thumb=2&thumbfov=66&ll=35.865647,-78.710116&cbll=35.865692,-78.709956

[Fred Hall]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 00:24:19 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote in
<f24d8f87-6de5-457b...@s27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:

>I have no criminal record for doing anything
>bad to children

Liar

--

http://www.smbtech.com/ras/
http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com/2012/03/ras-mikaere-eunuch-enoch-michael.html

[Greegor]

On May 24, 2:42 am, Fred Hall <fkh...@databasix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 00:24:19 -0700 (PDT), Greegor

> <greego...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <f24d8f87-6de5-457b-91b7-1960797f0...@s27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:

>
> >I have no criminal record for doing anything
> >bad to children
>
> Liar

Are you so cracked you don't know the
difference between Social Services
administrative court and the CRIMINAL
court you plea bargained in, Gary Lee?

Did you actually confuse the two different
registries with each other?

The Social Services registry is so
full of crap that a few states have
abolished the stupid things and a bunch
of other states have wiped them clean
to start over, but actually to DELAY
the day they are forced to abolish
their Social Services registry as well.

All it takes is a caseworker with a bad
attitude and a supervisor to consent.
No due process, and many states totally
dead ended the appeal process as well.

It's a far cry from the plea bargain
you made in a CRIMINAL court, Gary Lee.
You agreed to a misdemeanor with
lifelong registration on a
CRIMINAL sex offender registry.

You knew that nobody would believe
your story about waking up with your
girlfriend's teen daughter on top
of your Johnson, right Gary Lee?

[Kent Wills]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:38:20 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Why DID you delete this post, Kent?
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.bob-larson/msg/d25345d1ca9b5dd9
>

Please prove I've deleted any post, ever, other than the one I
openly admitted to removing to prove how easy it is to do.
Bar your claim being a lie, you'll be able.

[Kent Wills]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 02:42:01 -0500, Fred Hall <fkh...@databasix.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 24 May 2012 00:24:19 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
><gree...@gmail.com> wrote in
><f24d8f87-6de5-457b...@s27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>I have no criminal record for doing anything
>>bad to children
>
>Liar

Actually, he doesn't. Greg's truth that he's not been so
convicted is supposed to foster his LIE that he did nothing wrong.
More PROOF, if any where needed, that the ONLY way Greg can be
honest, intentionally, is if he thinks it will advance one or more of
his other lies.
Greg has, so far, refused to state how he managed to avoid
prosecution. For whatever reason, he was able to get away with, among
other acts, fondling the child's genital area with his bare hand.

[Greegor]

G > I have no criminal record for doing

G > anything bad to children

""Fred Hall"" > Liar

> CRIMINAL sex offender

Banned > Yes you are, waterboarder.

KBW > Actually, he doesn't.

What a bunch of morons.

KBW > Greg's truth that he's not been so
KBW > convicted is supposed to foster
KBW > his LIE that he did nothing wrong.

IOW: Kent really IS a two time felon and
garage burglar so he needed the smokescreen.

KBW > More PROOF, if any where needed, that
KBW > the ONLY way Greg can be honest,
KBW > intentionally, is if he thinks it
KBW > will advance one or more of his other lies.

Sure Kent, you got some of the AUK'ers to help
you run your "Joe Job" on me and it's all my fault.

KBW > Greg has, so far, refused to state how he
KBW > managed to avoid prosecution.  For
KBW > whatever reason, he was able to get away
KBW > with, among other acts, fondling the
KBW > child's genital area with his bare hand.

No such thing ever took place.

That would be the obvious reason why
no criminal charges ever got started.

[Kent Wills]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 03:54:58 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>G > I have no criminal record for doing
>G > anything bad to children
>
>""Fred Hall"" > Liar
>
>> CRIMINAL sex offender
>
>Banned > Yes you are, waterboarder.
>
>KBW > Actually, he doesn't.
>
>What a bunch of morons.
>

Wait! You DO have a criminal record for being a sex offender?
If not for your deeply rooted psychological NEED to lie, your
admission would be quite interesting.
So, are you being honest, or are you lying?

[Greegor]

Tell us exactly what it means, Kent!

714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Offense Date: 01/24/2000

[Fred Hall]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 01:50:48 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote in
<ef530de4-38da-4580...@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:

>The Social Services registry[SLAP!]

The fact remains that you abused a 7 year old girl and were slapped
down by the legal system.

Why was the little girl not returned to her mother?

Of course, you won't answer that question, will you?

[Kent Wills]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 11:41:35 -0700 (PDT), Greegor

<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:38:20 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
>><gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Why DID you delete this post, Kent?
>>>
>>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.bob-larson/msg/d25345d1ca9b5dd9
>>>
>>
>> Please prove I've deleted any post, ever, other than the one I
>>openly admitted to removing to prove how easy it is to do.
>> Bar your claim being a lie, you'll be able.
>

>Tell us exactly what it means, Kent!
>
>714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
>Offense Date: 01/24/2000

Your admission that you lied is accepted.
Thank you.

[Greegor]

GLB > The fact remains that you abused a 7 year old
GLB > girl and were slapped down by the legal system.

If there was proof there would have been a criminal charge.
If there was not proof then what do you think it was?
Which part of the "legal system" do you think you're talking about?

You plea bargained to a misd with lifelong registration
on a criminal sex offender registry, Gary Lee.

You had your information so wrong that
even Kent had to tell you so.

[Greegor]

Tell me Kent, does Iowa 714.2(3) match up
with "theft by deception"?

What do you think that means?

[Kent Wills]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 19:33:42 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>GLB > The fact remains that you abused a 7 year old
>GLB > girl and were slapped down by the legal system.
>
>If there was proof there would have been a criminal charge.
>If there was not proof then what do you think it was?
>Which part of the "legal system" do you think you're talking about?
>
>You plea bargained to a misd with lifelong registration
>on a criminal sex offender registry, Gary Lee.
>

You just can't stop lying.
Let your shrink know about this, if you can be honest enough.

[Kent Wills]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 19:37:32 -0700 (PDT), Greegor

<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:


>>>>>Why DID you delete this post, Kent?
>>>>>
>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.bob-larson/msg/d25345d1ca9b5dd9
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please prove I've deleted any post, ever, other than the one I
>>>>openly admitted to removing to prove how easy it is to do.
>>>> Bar your claim being a lie, you'll be able.
>>>
>>>Tell us exactly what it means, Kent!
>>>
>>>714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
>>>Offense Date: 01/24/2000
>>
>> Your admission that you lied is accepted.
>> Thank you.
>

>Tell me Kent, does Iowa 714.2(3) match up
>with "theft by deception"?
>
>What do you think that means?

Your admission that you lied has already been accepted, Greg.
While it's nice that you want to make certain your admitting to it
remains a focus of conversation, it's not necessary.
Your ensuring as many people as possible know you admitted to
lying aside, I've never looked up the code you cite. As such, I don't
know what is contained within it.
If, as you imply, it matches up with theft by deception, you've
answered your own question.

[Greegor]

G > Hi

KBW > Your admission that you lied about who
KBW > my parents are, where I live, and my
KBW > having a trust fund is accepted.
KBW > While not required, are you willing
KBW > to explain why you offered these lies
KBW > and what made you think you would
KBW > get away with them?

G > That's QUITE an interpretation, Kent!
G > You'd think you never even posted
G > your own Date Of Birth to usenet!

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/msg/7bb21a6718c8504c

Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:46:12 [...]
KBW 2003 > I was born in Krakow, Poland on
KBW 2003 > Jan. 8, 1969. I grew up there, and
KBW 2003 > in the mid 80's I came to the US.

GLB > You guys must be brothers, separated at birth. You both lie.

GLB > And no, I'm not Gary Burnore, I'm not Fred
GLB > Hall though my first name is really Fred.

Too late, Gary Lee. That ship already sailed.

[Fred Hall]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 19:33:42 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote in
<aef2ac10-3014-4238...@w13g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>:

>If there was not proof then what do you think it was?

Why was the little girl not returned to her mother?

[Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.]

"Fred Hall" <fkh...@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:jpoebq$rnc$2...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...

> On Thu, 24 May 2012 19:33:42 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
> <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <aef2ac10-3014-4238...@w13g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>If there was not proof then what do you think it was?
>
> Why was the little girl not returned to her mother?

Rachel lived with her mother, dumbass!

--
Sir Gregory

[Fred Hall]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 13:27:26 -0400, Sir � Gregory � Hall, Esq.
<greghall@home.f�ke> wrote in <5ll4v0....@news.alt.net>:

>"Fred Hall" <fkh...@databasix.com> wrote in message
>news:jpoebq$rnc$2...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 19:33:42 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
>> <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <aef2ac10-3014-4238...@w13g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>>If there was not proof then what do you think it was?
>>
>> Why was the little girl not returned to her mother?
>

>Jessica lived with her mother, dumbass!

No surprise

--

"Not true. Gay is PERFORMING a gay act like fellatio. Being on the
receiving end of fellatio is not performing. It's sort of like being in
an audience and enjoying a performance. Does it make somebody in an
audience an actor when he watches an actor? No." - NellieGregHall Warren
attempts to rationalize his homosexual desires

"gay is gay, gweg, whether yer pitching or catching." Neon
explains the hows and whys of sexuality to clueless Nellie Gweg Hall

[Kent Wills]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 12:23:35 -0500, Fred Hall <fkh...@databasix.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 24 May 2012 19:33:42 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
><gree...@gmail.com> wrote in
><aef2ac10-3014-4238...@w13g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>If there was not proof then what do you think it was?
>
>Why was the little girl not returned to her mother?

Because Lisa Rene Watkins' self esteem was so low, she thought
Greg was as good as she deserved. She chose an uneducated, unemployed
wife BEATER and founded child abuser LOSER over her own child.
I can't imagine having self esteem so low that Greg seems like a
great option.

[Greegor]

GLB > Why was the little girl not returned to her mother?

I didn't know that Rachel was taken away from Nancy.
Rachel is about 33 years old now.

[Greegor]

On May 25, 12:23 pm, Fred Hall <fkh...@databasix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 19:33:42 -0700 (PDT), Greegor

> <greego...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <aef2ac10-3014-4238-9539-c6ddaa912...@w13g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>:

>
> > If there was not proof then what do you think it was?
>
> Why was the little girl not returned to her mother?

Rachel would be 33 now, Gary Lee.

[Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.]

"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:369dea2e-fb24-47b2...@o3g2000pby.googlegroups.com...

//
// Rachel would be 33 now, Gary Lee.

//

And the poor girl probably STILL has nightmares about that TONGUE!!!
Ewwwwww!

[Greegor]

GLB > Why was the little girl not returned to her mother?

G > Rachel would be 33 now, Gary Lee.

> And the poor girl probably STILL has
> nightmares about that TONGUE!!! Ewwwwww!

http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/defectgb.jpg

And that's from back then, 16 years ago.

Don't you think Gary Lee's even more of a charmer by now?

[Fred Hall]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 11:59:52 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote in
<2391bcba-8a92-4eae...@n8g2000pbv.googlegroups.com>:

>Why was the little girl not returned to her mother?

<crickets>

[Fred Hall]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 11:38:28 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote in
<369dea2e-fb24-47b2...@o3g2000pby.googlegroups.com>:

>Why was the little girl not returned to her mother?

<Simon and Garfunkel>

[Greegor]

GLB > Why was the little girl not returned to her mother?

I didn't know that Rachel was taken away from Nancy.
Rachel is about 33 years old now.

[Bill Graham]

Yes. These kinds of problems always go away in time.... 18 years or less, to
be more specific.....

[Greegor]

On May 25, 7:44 pm, I Bought DataBasix <ow...@databasix.com> wrote:

> Greegor think's Fred is Gary, then thinks I am Gary, then thinks Fred
> is Gary again. Now you'll be Gary.

> Meanwhile, Greegor still has to explain
> why he was nekkid in front of that little girl.

I was NOT naked in front of any little girl, ever.

Gary Lee Burnore, Kent Bradley Wills
and their sock ID's are just running
what is called a "Joe Job", a style
of harassment.

Gary Lee Burnore is so obsessed with
the AUK'er style of usenet harassment
that he runs a server named Databasix
just to enable the other AUK'er misfits
to harass others anonymously.

[Kent Wills]

I think he was referring to Lisa Rene Watkins' daughter.

[Kent Wills]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 16:09:19 -0500, Fred Hall <fkh...@databasix.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 25 May 2012 11:59:52 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
><gree...@gmail.com> wrote in
><2391bcba-8a92-4eae...@n8g2000pbv.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>Why was the little girl not returned to her mother?
>
><crickets>

Greg will NEVER answer.

[Kent Wills]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 19:37:59 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 25, 7:44 pm, I Bought DataBasix <ow...@databasix.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 17:12:32 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Greegor wrote:
>> >> On May 25, 12:23 pm, Fred Hall <fkh...@databasix.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 19:33:42 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
>> >>> <greego...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >>> <aef2ac10-3014-4238-9539-c6ddaa912...@w13g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >>>> If there was not proof then what do you think it was?
>>
>> >>> Why was the little girl not returned to her mother?
>>
>> >> Rachel would be 33 now, Gary Lee.
>>
>> >Yes. These kinds of problems always go away in time.... 18 years or less, to
>> >be more specific.....
>>
>> Greegor think's Fred is Gary, then thinks I am Gary, then thinks Fred
>> is Gary again. Now you'll be Gary.
>
>> Meanwhile, Greegor still has to explain
>> why he was nekkid in front of that little girl.
>
>I was NOT naked in front of any little girl, ever.
>
>Gary Lee Burnore, Kent Bradley Wills
>and their sock ID's are just running
>what is called a "Joe Job", a style
>of harassment.
>

I've never claimed you were naked when you watched the child
showering.
Why are you so UNABLE to be honest? What is at the root of your
deeply rooted psychological NEED to lie?
I've asked this MANY times, yet you've NEVER answered.

>Gary Lee Burnore is so obsessed with
>the AUK'er style of usenet harassment
>that he runs a server named Databasix
>just to enable the other AUK'er misfits
>to harass others anonymously.

He sold the server quite some time ago, stupid. I don't KNOW, but
I expect the records of the sale are open to the public. Save up your
SSI money and travel to North Carolina and check the records.

[Greegor]

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/msg/7bb21a6718c8504c
>
> Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:46:12  [...]
> KBW 2003 > I was born in Krakow, Poland on
> KBW 2003 > Jan. 8, 1969.  I grew up there, and
> KBW 2003 > in the mid 80's I came to the US.

> GLB > You guys must be brothers, separated at birth. You both lie.
>
> GLB > And no, I'm not Gary Burnore, I'm not Fred
> GLB > Hall though my first name is really Fred.

G > Too late, Gary Lee.   That ship already sailed.

GLB Probation Officer Report (3 pages)Oct 1997

http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc1_Page1.JPG
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc1_Page2.JPG
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc1_Page3.JPG

"Appearing before the Court for Violation of Probation
is 40-year-old Gary Burnore. The defendant was
convicted of violation of Sec. 647.6(a) PC (Annoying/
Molesting a Child Under the Age of 18). He is allegedly
in violation for failure to register, failure to make
payments, failure to participate in counseling, and
leaving the state of California without permission.
The defendant takes little responsibility for the
occurring offense, minimizing the part he played,
blaming others, and justifying his behavior as being
appropriate. Likewise, the defendant appears to
view himself as the victim, vocalizing his distress
that he has done everything 'right' and that the
Probation Department is preventing him from moving.
It is his belief that the probation officer is
'harassing' him.

Although the defendant verbalizes his compliance
with the terms and conditions of probation, it
seems clear that his actions speak louder than
his words, especially in the light of his recent
absconding from Santa Clara County. In secret,
the defendant moved to another state, fully
realizing he could not move from California
until Interstate Compact had finished their
investigation and the new state accepted his
case. The defendant's behavior can only be
characterized as manipulative and self-serving.
It appears the defendant does not believe he
needs to follow the rules, but rather that he
is a victim of the system and can, therefore,
do as he pleases.

The defendant's attitude, failure to comply,
and the point that he takes only minimal
responsibility for the occurring offense,
suggests that risk for potential victims
may be high."

J. Puccinelli, Probation Officer, Unit IV
Municipal Court of the State of California,
Santa Clara County, People of the State
of California v. Gary Burnore
Probation Office No. DMU044
Court No. C9618225 DA No. 961131078
Santa Clara Police Department Case No. 9615185

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=0594483